377 



have adduced impressive evidence that there are increased rates of cancer and 

 leukemia at the present allowable total body dose for radiation workers of five 

 rem per year. The permitted dose has been progressively reduced since the 

 beiiinning of this century, as radiation effects were observed at lower and lower 

 levels (6) : from 2500 rem/yr in 1902, to 100 in 1925, to 25 in 1936, to 5 in 1955. 

 If one extrapolates this downslope to 1970, one predicts a reduction to 0.5, which 

 is about what Gofman and Tamplin are suggesting ! More and more it api)ears 

 that there is no really safe dose of radiation, but the risk is proportional to 

 the dose. 



What, then, is an acceptable risk? It seems to me that there is a critical dif- 

 ference between a risk which one chooses, in order to gain a larger benefit, such 

 as ha^^ng an x-ray taken, or working professionally with radioactive materials, 

 as I do, and the situation with which we are now confronted, in which every liv- 

 ing thing on the land, in the air, and on and under the sea, is being poisoned 

 with radioactive wastes because some decision-makers, in some countries, have 

 decided that their people must have atomic bombs and atomic power, regardless 

 of the consequences to the environment. 



Polikarpov concluded his book. Radioecology of Aquatic Organisms: "It has 

 been shown that further radiocative contamination of the seas and oceans is 

 inadmissible, because it entails great risk of a) producing irreversible changes 

 in the hydrobiosphere, b) disrupting the resources upon which the fisheiies de- 

 pend and c) producing dangerous levels of contamination in the marine organisms 

 consumed by man. To avoid these radiation consequences, it is esvsential to end 

 all nuclear weapons tests and the dumping of liquid and solid radioactive waste 

 into the seas and oceans." 



What can we do to save this great "common heritage of mankind" from further 

 contamination? 



The most hopeful signs I see in a generally discouraging world trend are con- 

 ferences such as this one, exploring the possibility of an Ocean Regime, tJiat 

 would involve agreement among all nations not to turn the seas into a radio- 

 active sump (7,8.9). Just as international fishing agreements are necessary 

 in order to save desirable species from extinction, limitations on waste disposal 

 will benefit all nations by preserving healthy aquatic species (10). The frus- 

 trated individual, confronted with reckless industrial and military interests (11) 

 and their enormous money and power, can join conservation organizations, such 

 as the Oceanic Society, which I represent here, and make their voices heard. 

 Collective action has proved to be effective at times, as in blocking the building 

 of a reactor at Bodega Bay, California, on the San Andreas Fault. At stake is the 

 health of the oceans, on which all life depends. 



References 



1. Polikarpov. GG. Radioecology of Aquatic Organisms, Reinhold, 1966. 



2. Woodwell. GM, The ecological effects of radiation. Scientific American, 221 : 

 issue of Sept. 1969. 



3. Mawson, CA, Management of Radioactive Wastes, Van Nostrand, 1965. 



4. Gofman, JW, and Tamplin, AR, A proposal for at least a Ten-fold reduction 

 in the FRC guidelines for radiation exposure to the population-at-large. Testi- 

 mony at hearings of the Committee on Atomic Energy 91st Congress, Jan. 28, 

 1970. 



5. Lawson. HG, Nuclear Split, an account of the Gofman-Tamplin AEC con- 

 troversy. The Wall Street Journal, May 20, 1970. 



6. Schubert, J, and Lapp, RE, Global Radiation Limits, Bull. Atomic Scien- 

 tists 14 : 23, Jan. 1958. 



7. Brynielsson. H, Radioactive Waste Disposal into the Sea, International 

 Atomic Energy Agency Safety Series No. 5, Vienna, 1961. 



8. Olson, TA. and Burgess, FJ, eds.. Pollution and Marine Ecology, Interscience 

 Publishers, 1967. 



9. Hedgpeth, JW, The Oceans : World Sump, Environment 12 : 40, 1970. 



10. The Ocean, Scientific American 221 ; entire issue of Sept. 1969. 



11. Inglis. DR, The Hazardous Industrial Atom (Book Review) Bull. Atomic 

 Scientists 26 : 50, Feb. 1970. 



(Whereupon, at 6 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 

 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 7, 1971.) 



62-513 — 71 25 



